2014-Ģ��ƵAT-488

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered the Secretary-General��s appeal of Ģ��ƵDT Order No. 233, which contended that Ģ��ƵDT exceeded its competence in issuing an order as there was no matter for adjudication after Ms Chocobar withdrew her application. Ģ��ƵAT found that Ģ��ƵDT, in making its Order in the absence of a case to adjudicate, lacked jurisdiction and exceeded its competence to a significant degree. Ģ��ƵAT noted that Article 36 of the Ģ��ƵDT RoP did not provide a legal basis for the Ģ��ƵDT Order, as there was no case before Ģ��ƵDT to which Article 36 could apply. Ģ��ƵAT further noted that Article 36 does not allow Ģ��ƵDT to augment its jurisdiction in violation of Article 2 of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute. Ģ��ƵAT allowed the appeal and vacated the Ģ��ƵDT Order in its entirety, with the exception of Ģ��ƵDT��s closure of the case in which the application was withdrawn.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ms Chocobar contested the selection of another candidate for a P-4 position and then filed a motion seeking leave to withdraw the application following a confidential settlement agreement. In Order No. 233 (NY/2014), Ģ��ƵDT noted that, in light of the withdrawal, there was no matter for adjudication by Ģ��ƵDT and therefore declared the case was closed. However, Ģ��ƵDT proceeded to make findings regarding a substantive issue raised in Ms Chocobar��s application and found that the Organisation��s continued use of pre-approved rosters for both generic job openings and position-specific openings was incorrect. Pursuant to Article 7 of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 36 of its Rules of Procedure, Ģ��ƵDT ordered that the matter be referred to the Secretary-General for urgent consideration, including a referral to the President of the General Assembly, if the Secretary-General deemed it necessary to do so.

Legal Principle(s)

At the heart of Ģ��ƵDT��s jurisdiction is its statutory remit to judicially review decisions which affect the contractual entitlements of employees. Ģ��ƵAT and Ģ��ƵDT shall not have any powers beyond those conferred under their respective statutes.

Outcome

Appeal granted

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Chocobar

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement